Letters to the Editor

PROFIT MOTIVE

I was extremely disappointed to read Matthew Gauntlett's letter (see [2002] Gazette, 31 October, 17).

The solicitors' profession is not the only one which is subject to regulation.

Many different aspects of the RAC's business are subject to regulation from a number of different bodies.

This will be the same for any customer service organisation.

It will no doubt come as something of a shock to some in the legal profession to learn that we do in fact comply, and do not have a problem with complying, with the regulations of these bodies, while at the same time still making a profit.

It has been an oft-repeated point that companies such as the RAC are not fit or capable of providing legal services to the public because we would wish to do so in a profitable manner.

Solicitors are also interested in the financial performance of their firms.

The RAC, and many other reputable providers, have made their positions clear.

We wish to be able to offer legal services in a framework which is fully regulated by the Law Society, and which fully complies with all rules and regulations which are in place to ensure client protection.

The legal profession must adapt to be able to meet the needs of its clients.

It must grasp with both hands the opportunity that it now has.

It is the opportunity to modernise the profession, provide a more secure and rewarding career path, generate investment, rebuild esteem and standing in the public eye, and most importantly provide clients with the standard of service they expect.

Jonathan Gulliford, head of RAC legal services

TACKLING COMPLAINTS

Mike Frith focuses on the high number of firms with no written complaints procedure despite the Solicitors Costs Information and Client Care Code 1999 (see [2002] Gazette, 7 November, 39).

The result of my firm's risk management work for solicitors practices confirms Mr Frith's experience of firms believing that there is something within their procedure manual to cover a point, for example a complaints procedure, but when you dig down you find that it is patently inadequate or completely misunderstood.

We have encountered several firms needing help with writing their procedures in a plain English, easy-to-use format.

Not only are there the sanctions Mr Frith refers to, but in addition, the lost opportunity to prevent an expensive claim arising, because what started out as a relatively simple complaint was poorly handled.

We have heard claimants say that all they had wanted was an apology.

Often the reason for these failures is merely the lack of time available to draw up a written procedure.

Sue Mawdsley, Weightman Vizards, Liverpool

CPR CONCERNS

Proof, if any were needed, that the cards-on-the-table approach promoted by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 has yet to reach all corners.

In response to my request for details of an alleged claim against my client, I recently received the following indignant reply: 'Your client would be entitled to know the case against him if one existed.

This company knows of no such case.' This was followed by a threat of imminent litigation if payment was not forthcoming.

You couldn't make it up.

Andrew Isitt, EDC Lord and Co, Hayes, Middlesex

YOU HAVE MAIL

I have been reading with some bemusement the correspondence regarding personal e-mails and indeed personal ordinary mail received in to the office.

As a partner in a firm, I believe I have a right and duty to open all correspondence that comes into the firm, and which may therefore have some bearing on the client business.

I am unable to appreciate why any member of staff should think that it might be acceptable to give out a firm's office address as an appropriate address for the receipt of private correspondence, and that the fact that any correspondence might be addressed to a member of staff and be addressed 'private and confidential' is no reason that I can see why that mail should not be opened.

I know from my own experience that I have received correspondence to me personally and marked private and confidential which has been neither private nor confidential but has related to a particular matter that I have been dealing with.

MM Caporn, Sheltons, Nottingham